Men of Valor

From Free Speech, April 20, 1996

We Must Have Such Men if the West Is to Survive 

By Dr. William Pierce

Several weeks ago the actor Marlon Brando was interviewed on a television talk show, and he got a little careless. He blurted out something which everyone in the media and in show business knows, but which no one is supposed to say. Marlon Brando said that Jews own and run Hollywood, and that they run it for their own benefit: they run it to suit themselves and no one else. The films they make portray other ethnic groups unfavorably, but the Jews portray themselves only in the most favorable light.

Marlon Brando tells Larry King during his CNN interview, 

April 5, 1996. "I am very angry with some of the Jews...

They know perfectly well what their responsibilities are...

Hollywood is run by Jews. It is owned by Jews..."

Well, sir, what else is new? Next someone will be announcing that the earth goes around the sun!
You know, that's a funny thing: the Jews and their allies reacted to Brando's statement about the way the Christian church reacted 400 years ago to Galileo's statement about the relationship between the earth and the sun. They screamed for Brando's blood. And at the same time they tried to obscure the issue and distract people's attention away from the central point: namely, the Jewish control of the media.

They called Brando an "anti-Semite." They began wailing about the so-called "Holocaust." They stepped up their demands for laws against what they like to call "hate speech."

The same sort of thing happened about a year ago, when a British journalist, a reporter for the London Daily Telegraph, wrote an article about Hollywood pointing out that all of the top executives in the motion picture industry are Jews. The Jewish establishment greeted this revelation in exactly the same way, denying what was obviously true and at the same time trying to make people feel guilty for realizing that it was true. They yelled "anti-Semitism" and trotted out their favorite gas-chamber stories. Weren't six million enough? they moaned. So much hate! They acted as if the simple statement of truth about their control of Hollywood were an act of persecution, and that anyone who didn't immediately blot it from his mind were an "anti-Semite."

Now, this sort of behavior -- this pretense of shocked and wounded innocence -- has worked wonderfully for the Jews for the past 50 years. They've been able to intimidate most people into keeping their mouths shut most of the time. They have made the average American so afraid of being labeled a "racist" or an "anti-Semite" that they have been able to enforce their own code of Political Correctness: a code under which one may say nothing about a Jew except an expression of praise or sympathy.

It's a fascinating situation. They've been able to enforce this code, under which no one may say that they control the media, only because they do control the media: it is their control of the media which gives them the power to enforce their code of Political Correctness on the public. And they certainly have most of the public buffaloed.

Or do they? They raised such a fuss about Marlon Brando's comments earlier this month that an Internet poll was taken to find out what the public reaction to the fuss was. One of the major Internet access providers, Prodigy, took the poll, and the results were encouraging. The Prodigy poll found that despite all of the Jewish screaming about Brando's comments being "anti-Semitic," half of those polled didn't think what Brando had said was anti-Semitic at all, but was a simple statement of fact. Jews do give themselves especially favorable treatment in Hollywood films, they said.

Yes, it is encouraging to learn that despite all the media brainwashing 50% of the public hasn't been fooled. That raises my estimate of the public's intelligence and power of perception.

Now, if that 50% would be willing to stand up and say in public what they will say in an anonymous poll, my estimate of the public's character and courage also would be raised -- and so would my hopes for the future of our people.

You know, it is important to be intelligent and perceptive. It is important not to be fooled by our enemies; it is important to be able to see through their lies and deception. But it is more important -- much more important -- to have courage and to be honorable in one's behavior. It is important to have valor. That's something which is sadly lacking in America today, I'm afraid. Despite what Mr. Brando said, I'm not inclined to give him credit for much valor; I'm inclined to believe that he had a few martinis in him when he gave that interview, because the next day he was groveling and apologizing.

What's really unfortunate is that we don't have a valorous ruling class in America to provide leadership and to set standards for others. Without such a class the country cannot long survive.

We do have a ruling class of sorts, of course; there is always a ruling class of some type. But the men who rule America today are certainly not men of valor. They are lawyers, bureaucrats, rich businessmen, scribes and Pharisees.

They are men without ideology, men whose only fixed principle is always to do what is advantageous for themselves. And, in a sense, they are the "best" of their type: that is, they have worked harder, been smarter and meaner, and hewed more closely to the party line -- to the established body of cant -- than those who didn't make it to the top. The "fittest" in any society survive and prosper.

But valor, unfortunately, does not seem to have survival value in 20th-century American society -- at least, not the kind of valor which we remember fondly from bygone centuries. What would an old-fashioned Yankee or a Southern gentleman do in today's America? How would he react upon encountering a Black male swaggering down the sidewalk with a White woman on his arm? Suppose he came face to face on the street with one of the filthy creatures who has made a career in politics, the media, or the pulpit by helping to bring about the state of affairs in which White women dare to be seen in public on the arms of Blacks. How long could a valorous man stay out of prison?

The best men today know that they are living in enemy-occupied territory, and upon such a sidewalk encounter they only grit their teeth and pass in silent rage, while the worst display an ingratiating smile.
 
I'm reminded of something Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote about life in the Soviet Union 70 years ago, when the Jews and their allies were consolidating their grip on the Russian people. In cities like Moscow, Solzhenitsyn wrote, the black vans would go out from secret-police headquarters every night. A van would pull up in front of an apartment building, and four or five secret-police agents would get out and knock on a door. Then they would make an arrest: someone who had been overheard making a Politically Incorrect remark or had been seen reading a Politically Incorrect book. The person would be taken away and never be seen again. This happened hundreds of times every night. The head of the secret police was an especially vicious Jewish thug named Genrikh Yagoda. The arrests and the murders in the basement of secret-police headquarters went on night after night, month after month. And Solzhenitsyn lamented the fact that no one ever put up any resistance.

Even though the Reds had confiscated most privately owned firearms, there were still a few around. Even without firearms, it wouldn't have been especially difficult for a few brave and determined men -- a few men of valor -- to ambush one of these secret-police patrols and kill the secret policemen. After this had happened a few times, the patrols very likely would have found other things to concern themselves with besides arresting Politically Incorrect citizens. The cops could have spent more time with their donuts and coffee, and Yagoda could have spent more time preparing his next Five-Year-Plan.

But there was no resistance. There were no men of valor. The people were like sheep. The murders continued. And I'm afraid that after the Jews have their "hate crime" and "hate speech" laws in place in this country, Americans will put up no more resistance to the FBI than the Russians did to their secret police 70 years ago.

One of my favorite authors is Brooks Adams, the 19th-century American economist and historian.

Adams divided men roughly into two classes: 

spiritual man and economic man. The former 

are what I would call men of valor.

In his book The Law of Civilization and Decay Adams put forth the idea that the spiritual climate of a particular period in history favors the survival and proliferation of men with a particular inner orientation, while driving men with a different orientation out of existence, much in the way the physical environment favors or disfavors a particular somatic trait.

Adams divided men roughly into two classes: spiritual man and economic man. The former are what I would call men of valor. Adams saw their epitome in the English yeomanry of the Middle Ages: freeholding farmer-warriors. They flourish during the period when a new civilization is being established.

The other class, economic man, epitomized by the merchants and bureaucrats who later replaced the yeomen, flourishes during the period of a civilization's decay and collapse. Adams pinpointed democracy as an institution congenial to economic man but especially inimical to the existence of spiritual man.

The entire Western world -- not just America -- has been spiritually dead since the Second World War. Economic man has swarmed over its corpse, fattening himself on its material remains and multiplying mightily. Physical collapse may not yet be imminent, but the decadence is profound and irreversible. Valor, sorely needed to see us through the coming night and hold us to a worthy purpose until the new dawn, is a memory growing fainter by the decade.

As the West continues its slide into chaos, strong men, White and non-White, will rise to provide some degree of order and security for their adherents. Some will not be much more than local mafia chiefs; others will carve out regional or even national constituencies based on common economic interests, common ideologies, common ethnicities, or some combination of these.

In each case the leaders of these groups will be distinguished by valor of a sort. They will be men who have proved themselves tougher, more energetic and aggressive, and cleverer than their rivals. They will command respect as well as obedience from the members of their groups -- which is more than can be said for America's present ‘leaders. ‘

We will see more and more a return to leadership based on personal strength rather than institutional sanction -- to natural leadership, the kind which existed among our people thousands of years ago, before we began building cities and writing laws, and which still exists among many non-White populations today. That's also still the way it is in some more-or-less civilized areas just outside the borders of the Western world: in places like Lebanon, for example, and in Latin America.

Now, rule by mafia bosses may be fine for Levantines and Latins, but we need more than a valor based only on toughness, cleverness, and ambition. The West has no shortage of tough, clever, ambitious men. And we still have many who are physically strong and courageous -- although perhaps not so many these days as we would like.

The valor we remember -- and the valor we must have again -- depends at least as much on moral courage as on physical courage. Even more, it depends on the inner sense of direction which must guide the man of valor, if his courage and strength are to be used to a worthy end.

Originally the word valor meant value, worth. A man's worth was a measure not of what he owned or controlled, however -- not of how many shares he could buy in the stock market or how many votes he could collect at the polls -- but of what he was.

The ideal man of valor is guided unerringly by his inner compass. He is imperturbable and implacable. His loyalty to his cause is his honor, and his actions are as unaffected by considerations of personal comfort or safety as by the opinions of lesser men.

How can we have such men to lead us in this age of Jewish television, democracy, and the supremacy of the marketplace?

A man does not acquire valor simply by making a resolution to act valorously; it is the product of a lifetime of right living and right thinking by a man born with the right stuff in him.

Surely, men of our race are still being born with the right stuff. Economic man may be forcing spiritual man out of existence generation by generation, but the process is not complete yet.

Our problem is to provide an environment which does not stunt or warp the spirits of our best men and women. The environment which prevails in America today produces from our best stock merely lawyers tricky enough to out-shyster the trickiest Jew, businessmen hard-driving enough to beat out the most grasping Levantine competitor, professionals in every field willing to jettison scruples and truckle to alien arbiters in order to stay ahead of the pack. Children raised on a steady diet of MTV simply do not become men or women of valor.

When the chaos in America has grown to the point that there is no longer steady work for lawyers and corporation executives, the same stock will yield merely gang leaders meaner and tougher than the meanest and toughest mafioso rival, if the spiritual climate remains unchanged.

What we must do, no matter what it takes, is change that climate. We must devise a way to nurture the best seed that we have and to provide a regimen and a tutoring, an upbringing and an inculcation, for the yield of that seed which will once again give us men of real valor, in the best sense of the word.

It certainly would be easier to do this, easier to create a new atmosphere in which valor can flourish, if we controlled the news and entertainment media which our enemies control. If we, instead of the Jews about whom Mr. Brando complained, owned Hollywood, for example, we could do a lot in that direction.

Well, we don't own Hollywood, and we don't control the television networks, and we don't own the New York Times or the Washington Post, like the enemies of our people do, but we do get American Dissident Voices out every week on shortwave radio and on satellite and on a number of AM radio stations. You also can listen to ADV broadcasts on the Internet, if you have a computer with a fast modem and a sound card. Just check our World Wide Web site at www.natvan.com. At our web site you can listen to the current week's broadcast as well as a collection of our earlier broadcasts. Even if you don't have a sound card, you can download free copies of the transcripts of our programs.

Our work to make ADV programs available to a broad section of the public through a number of different media is possible only with your support. We're working now to extend the reach of our message by adding new broadcasting stations to our network. We're also working to develop new media for our message. We want to reach the public through video and through CDs as well as through radio. We need your help to do this. We can't do it without your help.

And we need your help now, because the people who own Hollywood and their allies in the Clinton government are pushing very hard for new laws which would make our broadcasts illegal. They want to be able to put people like Marlon Brando in prison for telling the truth about the Hollywood Jews. They want to put me and my associates in prison for bringing you the truth through the radio and through the Internet and through the books and magazines which we publish. They want to make telling the truth about them a "hate crime." They want to scrap the First Amendment, so that they can label as "hate speech" any expression of truth they don't like and make it illegal.

They work through Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center. These un-American organizations attempt to frighten the public into giving up their freedom in return for the promise of a little more security. And they work through the government. The people in the Clinton administration are eager to give them the new laws they want. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno would love to round up everyone who is not Politically Correct. The only thing which holds them back is fear of the public reaction. They're afraid of what that 50% of the public who agree with Mr. Brando might do.

Our job is to keep disseminating the truth as widely as we can, so that that 50% will grow to 60% and 70% and 80%. Our job is let the Clintonistas know that when they move to take away our freedom they will have a revolution on their hands. Our job is to build a pipeline for truth and inspiration so big that it cannot be shut off.

And, with your help, one of these days we will take Hollywood away from the Jews and we will use it to build a new climate in America: a climate in which valor can once again flourish.

"White Man's Burden" to feed the non-White world?

From Attack! tabloid, No. 31, 1974

America and the World Food Crisis

by Dr. William L. Pierce

 Left-wing cartoonists have been aiding in the media
propaganda campaign to convince Americans
that they must eat less so that American food
can be used to feed rapidly multiplying Africans and
Asians. This Conrad cartoon was drawn for the Los Angeles Times.

“As the world food crisis develops, Americans must shoulder their responsibility, willingly or not, to share their abundance with less fortunate people.”

“We must convince Americans to eat less meat so that more grain can be sent to starving peoples around the world.”

“It is manifestly unfair that Americans, who comprise only five per cent of the world’s population, should consume 15 per cent of the world’s food production. This inequality must be corrected.”

THESE STATEMENTS by various “experts” are only a few of hundreds of similar import which have been quoted in recent weeks by the controlled mass media in the current campaign to reorient Americans’ thinking toward their “responsibilities as members of the world community.” 

Worldwide Equality

What economic and foreign policy planners in Washington see as America ‘s primary “responsibility” is a world welfare program which would have the effect of gradually reducing the American standard of living to a par with that in Ethiopia and India. This ultimate goal of worldwide “equality” is only hinted at now by some of the System’s less discreet spokesmen, but that is clearly what these internationalist utopians have in mind for us.

They are already telling us this indirectly in several ways. Because America’s livestock industry consumes so much grain, Americans are being urged to eat less meat and more rice, corn, and other cereals. Every time an American eats a steak, we are told, a child in Africa must skip four meals.

It has even been suggested that America’s well-fed cats and dogs are a luxury “the world” can no longer afford.

Alarming Agreement

At several recent worldwide economic conferences in which U.S. officials have participated, spokesmen for other countries have been even more outspoken than Washington’s liberal theorists. China’s Dr. Han Suyin, at the World Population Conference in Bucharest this fall, bluntly declared: “The reality all should face is that the rich nations must now divest themselves of their property for the benefit of the poor.”

Such an attitude on the part of the have-not nations is nothing new, of course. They have always had their hands out, and they have always considered the Western nations to be responsible for their problems. What is new and alarming is that the men in Washington who make the policies which affect all our lives are now openly agreeing with them.

Turning Down the Food Thermostats

Lester Brown, of the Overseas Development Council, has announced that the government should require Americans “to do the food equivalent of turning the thermostats down six degrees. Skip one meal a week, have a meatless day, or cut meat production by 10 per cent. This would free up to perhaps 10 or 15 million tons of grain for shipment to Asia.”

In a new book which Brown coauthored, By Bread Alone— a book which has already been promoted to Gospel status by Ford administration liberals—the fundamental axiom of the new policy is laid down: “In an interdependent world plagued with scarcity, if some of us consume more, others must of necessity consume less.” It is also assumed, of course, that such unequal consumption is an evil which must be done away with in some way.

One of the ways being put forward is the creation of a world stockpile of grain. The United States would supply the input to this stockpile, and the Afro-Asian countries would take care of the output. Control of the stockpile, of course, would fall to the United Nations, where the Africans and Asians control the votes.

THESE HUNGRY INDIANS are lined up for handouts of relief grain, much of which was sold by American exporters to the Soviet Union in 1972 and then resold by the Soviets to India at a profit. The 1972 American grain sales, subsidized by our government, started the rapid rise in domestic food prices which has plagued American consumers for the past two years. It is a crime against Nature and against the future of our own race to subsidize the further reproduction of these people.

Third World Threat

In order to overcome American hesitation to embrace this and other schemes for eventually bringing us down to the level of Asian coolies, media and government propagandists are making dire warnings of the threat to America which will arise if we fail to meet Afro-Asian demands for American food. The gist of these warnings is that the rapidly growing, hungry masses of the “Third World” will upset the world order and end up taking from us what they want if we don’t give it to them.

THIS IS A TYPICAL WASHINGTON POST HEADLINE, part of the brainwashing campaign to convince Americans that they must feed the rest of the world. Henry Kissinger is taking his plan for a U.S.-supplied world grain stockpile to the World Food Conference in Rome this month. Liberal church leaders, who favor the plan, have told Kissinger they will use their pulpits to gain public support for his scheme.

The world population, now growing at the rate of 70 million each year, will reach seven billion by the year 2,000—only 26 years from now—we are told, and there is nothing we can do about it. Furthermore, Americans will be outnumbered by about 50 to one, so we had better start being nice to everyone.

Famine and Disease

The populations of most of the so-called “undeveloped” or “developing” nations have always lived at a bare-subsistence level. Incapable of the self-discipline required either to make better use of their natural resources or to voluntarily limit their rate of reproduction, their numbers were formerly kept in check by Nature’s age-old methods: famine and disease.

Then the White man, partly from economic-imperialist motives and partly from misguided humanitarianism, cured their diseases and helped them produce more food from their land.

The result was an enormous and rapid increase in population, which has now brought many of them back to the brink of starvation again. Indeed, hundreds of thousands have already starved to death in India and northern Africa in the past year.

Effect of Meddling

The net effect of the White man’s efforts has been to leave the peoples in large areas of the non-White world worse off than they were before. Their lives were short and hard, but it was an existence to which they were accustomed, and they enjoyed certain primitive luxuries, such as a little elbow room.

Today, thanks to the “development” brought by the White man, they are able to starve in vastly greater numbers per square mile—and, consequently, under vastly more squalid, crowded, and unnatural conditions—than previously.

White Man’s Burden

The White man ‘s folly is two layers deep. First, he gratuitously assumed that he had some sort of moral responsibility to attempt to remake the other races of the earth in his own image: the so-called “White man ‘s burden” piously promoted by Christian theologians, greedy colonialists, and addlepated do-gooders ever since the 18^thcentury.

Second—and this is a more subtle but no less grave error—he has labored under the assumption that, in undertaking to make an improvement on Nature, by doing for other peoples what they were patently unable to do for themselves, he was actually “helping” them.

Who Shall Survive?

The world food crisis now, of course, involves far more than moral issues. It involves the question of who shall inherit the earth—which peoples shall prosper and which shall do without, which shall survive and which shall perish.

But, even on moral grounds alone, there is no justification—except when using theinverted value system of neo-liberalism—for continuing to divert the diminishing resources of the West into an inevitably futile effort to save the peoples of the“Third World” from themselves. Indeed, what could be more immoral, from a cosmic point of view, than deliberately limiting the potential of the world’s ablest peoples in order to allow inferior peoples to proliferate?

Liberal Bogey Man

Beyond morality, it should be obvious that the real threat to America’s security comes from continuing to provide aid to overpopulated nations, rather than from simply letting them starve.

No matter how hungry Indians and Africans become and no matter how much they hate us, there is nothing they can do to take America’s wealth away unless we provide them with the means. What little military potential they possess has been provided by the West, and a withdrawal of Western technological aid would see that potential rapidly disappear.

The seven billion hungry non-Whites we are supposed to worry about a few years hence will never materialize if America simply refuses to continue subsidizing the present rate of population growth in Africa and Asia. Advocates of continued American food subsidies are creating their own bogey man.

There is only one proper solution to the population explosion in the non-White world, and to the concomitant world food crisis: total withdrawal of Western support, so that Nature can once again take its course.

Squeamish Americans may find that difficult to accept, but we will only make the present world situation worse and bring ultimate disaster on our own heads if we follow the course now being laid out for us by Mr. Kissinger and his colleagues in Washington.

* * *

Transcribed by Vanessa Neubauer from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom

Dr. Pierce Tells Us What's Important

From Attack! tabloid, No. 29, 1974:

The Important Things

by Dr. William L. Pierce

CHINA HAS THE largest population, the United States has the highest standard of living, the Soviet Union has the biggest navy, Sweden has the most beautiful women, Iceland has the highest level of literacy, and Germany has an industry with the best reputation for efficiency and craftsmanship.

Which of these things are really important? Which make worthy national goals? Toward which ends should a people most intently direct its energies and aspirations?

As America’s bicentennial draws near, one hears a great deal about such questions. All the mass media are putting forth their speculations on the question of what America’s “national purpose” should be, but satisfactory answers are much scarcer.

More Fiberglass Speedboats

If there is any consensus at all it seems to be that Americans should strive, first and foremost, for more of what they already have the most of, namely, affluence.

Although some spokesmen try to tone down the crass materialism of such a goal with euphemisms about improving the “quality of life,” their message still comes across as more fiberglass speedboats parked in American driveways.

In addition, of course, we should look forward to a 30·hour work week and several clever new ways for economically disposing of the country’s growing flood of waste products.

This is the sort of consensus we should expect from what America has, unfortunately, become. It is the sort of national purpose to which an inherently decadent society is naturally attracted.

Materialist Criteria

The criteria one uses in judging national goals depend upon one’s personal world view. The American conservative and the American neo-liberal, despite their differences, both have a fundamentally materialist-economic outlook. They both tend to evaluate national goals in terms of dollars and cents: in terms of such things as the gross national product, the per capita income, the national debt, and the balance of payments.

Even when they translate these economic concepts into human terms, they both have the basic materialist goal of achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of citizens. They only disagree as to the means to be used in achieving this goal.

But there are other criteria, lying wholly outside the materialist-economic realm, which may be used in deciding national goals, in distinguishing between truly important things and secondary things.

The Destiny Thinker

To the racially conscious man or woman of the West—to the destiny-thinker—what counts is not so much whether his fellow citizens are happy, prosperous, and have fulfilled sex lives, but whether they are willing and able to accept the challenge of History. His concern is that his people, his nation, be morally and spiritually prepared, as well as physically able, to grasp its destiny, to fill the role allotted it by the Creator of the universe.

He wants his people to be strong and fit and far-sighted, and he considers these things more important than prosperity and comfort. He understands that a people which places the highest value on happiness, rather than on fitness, is doomed to lose its happiness—and everything else—in the long run.

America Must Survive

He realizes that Western man—and, in particular, White America—has a mission and that that mission must take precedence over all else.

A people with a mission must, first of all, survive. If America is to survive she must have military might, which in turn requires a healthy economy and a vigorous, efficient national industry to provide the material basis for that might.

Liberals and conservatives agree with the destiny-thinker on the desirability of a strong economic and industrial base for America’s national defense, but they put theemphasis in the wrong place. They think primarily in terms of security rather than strength. There is a difference.

Dollar Diplomacy

If a nation seeks always to be strong, it will also be secure. But if it looks only for security, by any means, it may end up neither as strong nor as secure as it should be.

An example of this is our government’s post-World War II program to buy security by putting on the American dole all those countries which might otherwise adhere to our national enemies. The proponents of this program calculate that the billions of dollars in foreign aid used to buy the “friendship” of various banana republics and swarthy principalities allow us to reduce our defense expenditures by even more billions, thus resulting in a net saving for our national economy.

They forget that the only basis for true friendship is mutual respect, and a handout buys that neither for the giver nor the receiver. A truly strong nation will have the respect of other nations without even having to ask for it, whereas a nation which is merely rich will elicit envy rather than respect.

Prosperity vs. Fitness

But national strength depends on more than a material base; it also requires character, and that is something which is in no way enhanced by national prosperity.

Although a nation’s prosperity receives its initial impetus from a strong national character, in the long run prosperity may sap that very moral basis upon which it rests.

Adversity tempers a nation’s soul, just as it does the soul of the individual citizen, whereas the prolonged absence of adversity may allow souls to lose their temper. There is abundant evidence before us that America’s material wealth has taken a heavy spiritual toll.

History’s Irony

History’s great irony is this: fitness preconditions a people’s rise to dominance, which in turn leads to the decay of fitness and an eventual fall from dominance.

When tribes or nations or races interact with one another, that one most endowed by Nature with fitness will, in the ordinary course of events, rise to dominance over the others.

The hardest work and the most rigorous conditions of existence will then be the lot of the subordinate peoples, while the masters will enjoy relative luxury and a relaxed life-style.

The consequence of this difference in the demands which life makes on the various peoples will be that the dominant people will gradually lose its fitness, while the subordinate peoples will tend to retain theirs.

Eventually the time may come when one of the subordinate peoples will be more fit than its masters and will then supplant them and assume the dominant position for itself.

And the cycle repeats itself.

Turbulent Record

This is the principal cause of history’s turbulence. Were it not for this built-in instability, the historical record of mankind would be much simpler than it is. A naturally superior people would gain dominance over other peoples and, as time passed, extend and consolidate that dominance instead of losing it.

We said the cycle repeats itself. That, of course is not exactly true. Because history is turbulent, and not truly periodic or cyclic, there is no repetition. Peoples and nations rise and they fall, but the same peoples and nations never rise again.

When, occasionally, a fallen nation appears to regain its former dominance, one may be certain that the human content of that nation is not what it was before. History not only has a built-in instability but also a built-in loss mechanism: racial change.

Nature’s Pruning

Adversity conditions genetic fitness as well as spiritual fitness. Nature and a fit spirit then collaborate to keep the racial basis of a nation pure and healthy.

Rising prosperity and increasingly easier living begin circumventing Nature’s geneticpruning, with the slow, the stupid, and the lazy no longer being so effectivelyweeded out. Then, as moral fitness declines and toughness turns to squeamishness, man‘s own measures for protecting his racial quality and purity are gradually abandoned, and racial mixture begins taking place.

A nation which begins losing its political grip usually also begins losing its racial quality, which, once gone, can never return.

Ancestral Folly

As our Aryan ancestors began spreading over the face of the earth thousands of years ago, they dominated all the other peoples with whom they came in contact.But eventually they softened and lost their moral fitness, and now over vast areas where they once ruled—from the Mediterranean basin to India— they have so thoroughly mingled their blood with that of other races that they can never rise again, because they have literally ceased to exist.

In America today, the White majority has not only lost its fitness to rule as the unquestioned master of the continent, but it is well on the way toward losing its fitness to survive at all. Only its greater numbers give it security now, and even that security is rapidly dwindling in the face of racial mixing and soaring minority birth and immigration rates.

Vikings and Cannibals

If we could reach back a dozen centuries end pluck 1,000 Vikings out of barbarian Europe and 1,000 Negro tribesmen out of darkest Africa, each group armed with its traditional weapons, and set them at each other, there would not be the slightest doubt as to the outcome of the battle—or, more accurately, massacre. In fact, we could with perfect safety put our money on the Vikings if there were only 100 of them facing the 1,000 Negroes.

But things have changed in the last 1200 years—for the White man. He has grown dangerously soft, while the Blacks have retained much of their primitive toughness.

Nation of Weaklings

The consequences are evident everywhere, as the Black minority intimidates the White majority on our city streets, in our schools, in our jails, in our armed forces, and in our places of work.

And it is not just that we have become physically weak and soft, although that is a part of it. Much more important is that we have lost our moral temper, our courage, our fighting spirit, our sense of personal honor—and our feeling of racial pride and solidarity.

Thus, we even cower before the Jews, who have never been much of a physical menace. And in our dealings with enemies abroad we have become virtually a nation of weaklings, hiding behind our nuclear arsenal as third-rate Asiatic powers contemptuously defy us.

Breaking History’s Cycle

Man is a wondrous animal. He cannot circumvent Nature’s laws, but he can go a longway toward turning them to his advantage. With sufficient understanding and will he can make the best of them.

There is no natural law which says that a nation which has become rich and powerful must consequently become soft and decadent, any more than a man who has become wealthy and no longer needs to work for his living must become fat and lazy. It just usually turns out that way. In the case of nations it has never yet been otherwise.

But, just as an individual can remain fit through the exercise of sufficient self-discipline, so should a nation be able to do likewise. So should America.

Choosing National Goals

America should be able to remain economically and militarily strong and at the same time regain her former moral strength. It depends upon whether we have enough character left to choose the truly important things as our national goals, or whether we stick with the choices which have been made for us by the System and its molders of public opinion.

It depends upon whether we choose fitness as the pre-eminent national goal—fitness instead of debilitating comfort, fitness instead of transitory prosperity, fitness instead of false security, fitness instead of a delusory happiness.

What We Must Do

American can become fit again if we undertake the proper education of our children;if we forsake unnecessary civilian luxuries in order to maintain an unquestioned military superiority; if we put physical toughness ahead of self-indulgence; if we teach our fellow citizens to be self-reliant instead of dependent on government; andif we learn to discipline ourselves, putting the welfare of our racial community above all private interests.

Americans must understand that, contrary to the claims of the System’s educators, the proper education of our children does not require billions of dollars for shiny, glass-and-steel, air-conditioned school buildings, elaborately furnished with every luxury and frippery money can buy and offering courses in everything from African art to transcendental meditation.

Building Character

It requires instead a program for our young people which, beyond providing them with the rudiments of language and science needed to fill a productive role in society, builds character; a program of discipline, which is the way in which self-discipline is learned; a program aimed at developing in them a strong feeling of racial and cultural identity, through an intimate acquaintance with the achievements of their forebears, so that they understand that they are, above all else, White, and that they are the heirs to Western civilization, the most magnificent and profound cultural achievement on this globe; a program which also, instead of the “unisex” foolishness being pushed today, teaches our young men to be proud of their manhood and our young women to treasure their womanhood; a program which inculcates in them a sense of personal responsibility and of duty to their racial community; a program which toughens and trains their bodies as well as their minds and spirits; a program which uplifts them and directs their thoughts and aspirations toward the mission and the destiny of their people.

Guns or Butter?

Another choice which Americans must make is between guns and butter. We must come to understand that we can get along very well without electric can-openers, carving knives, toothbrushes, and pencil sharpeners; self-propelled lawn mowers and golf carts; power steering, power brakes, and power windows; automatic dish washers and self-cleaning ovens; but not without the strongest and the best-equipped armed forces in the world. A dollar spent for the national defense is a dollar better spent than for civilian luxuries.

Moreover, money spent for guns serves the national interest, whereas money spent on luxuries often harms that interest by undermining the physical health of the people. It may be pleasant, for example, to have more automobiles, elevators, and escalators per capita than any other country on earth, but it is far more important to have a citizenry which is healthy, trim, and physically hard.

Prepared to Slit Throats

Americans must also understand that being manly and tough does not mean being coarse, cruel, backward, or unrefined; that protecting our young people from the harsher realities of life serves neither them nor their racial community well in the long run; that it is better that they be prepared to slit throats without flinching, when the need arises, than that they be sheltered from danger and hardship and unpleasantness during their formative years.

Americans must understand that a resourceful and self-reliant citizenry is more important than an absolutely safe and secure citizenry and that, therefore, it is not the role of government to protect citizens from themselves, but only to protect the community; nor should government attempt to intrude excessively into the private affairs of individuals, nor to regulate their lives unnecessarily, but only to the extent demanded by national security and the social and racial health of the community.

Racial Interests Come First

Americans must also understand, on the other hand, that the freedom of the individual to do as he pleases requires certain limits, for the welfare of the nation; that there can be no unrestricted freedom to marry across racial lines or to have children without considerations of genetic soundness; that there can be no freedom to use private property to the detriment of the whole community, as, for example, the mass media are now being used; that there can be no freedom to indulge oneself in degeneracy which may contaminate the community, whether that degeneracy be homosexuality, drug addiction, or some other inexcusable vice.

Americans must come to understand which are the important things and which are not.

* * *

Transcribed by Vanessa Neubauer from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom

Dr. Pierce Answers FAQs about Cosmotheism and the CCC

Questions & Answers about Cosmotheism and the Cosmotheist Community Church

Q   With what single aim should men who are members of the Cosmotheist Community shape their institutions and shape their society?

A    Their single aim should be service of the Creator's Purpose. Every other thing which men may consider desirable in their society  -- justice, tranquility, security, happiness, wealth, liberty -- must be subordinated to this aim. 

Q    What are the four social concerns of men which are in accord with this aim?

A    They are survival, right striving, order, and progress.

Q    What four functions of the Community follow from these concerns?

A    The Community defends the lives and the physical and moral health of its members; it guides their striving; it maintains order and structure; and it evaluates the value of the human stock in which it is based.

Q    In what ways does the Community exercise its defensive function?

A    In three ways: It safeguards the purity, healthfulness, and abundance of its physical environment and resources; it arms itself against those who would harm it; and protects its members from spiritual poisoning by falsehood and indiscipline.

Q    How does the Community guide its members' striving for knowledge?

A    It provides schools, libraries, and other educational facilities; it fashions its celebrations and its rites, its customs and its practices, so that they impart knowledge of identity, mission, and means; and it ensures that the efforts of its knowledge             seekers are purposeful and coordinated.

Q    In guiding its members striving for knowledge, what principle criterion does the Community use?

A    It guides its members toward knowledge which leads to understanding, complements consciousness, and abets service.

Q    Does the Community provide for separation of church and state, of religious and secular matters, in the guidance of its members?

A    No. The Community is both church and state, and it does not separate these two aspects of its being. It does not separate guidance in striving for knowledge from guiding in raising consciousness or building character. It does not separate religious and moral training from other training. It guides each member towards knowledge, consciousness, and discipline through the same institutions.

Q    Why must the Community have order and structure? Why can it not be merely a collection of men and women of good will living together?

A    The Community does not exist for its own sake; it exists only in order to serve the Creator's Purpose, and it gains the strength to do so effectively only by coordinating all of its components.

Q    What criterion does the Community use in judging and ranking its members?

A    The Community judges and ranks its members according to their value in performance to its service to the Creator's Purpose. It recognizes each member's value in his physical and mental qualities, in his qualities of character, and in his attainments and service.

Q    What are the obligations of rank in the Community?

A    Each member has the obligation of guidance of those ranked beneath him and respect for those ranked above him.

Q    What are the four essential institutions of the Community, and their functions?

A    They are the family, by which the Community breeds and builds itself; the academy, by which it trains itself and grows in knowledge; the corps of guardians, by which it defends itself; and the hierarchy, by which it governs and guides itself.

Q    How does the Community elevate the value of its stock?

A    It elevates its stock biologically by pruning and selecting, by combining and propagating in the family those qualities which best serve its purpose; and it elevates its stock morally and spiritually by refining and strengthening its means for awakening consciousness and building character in its members.

Q   In what way does the Community remain unchanged, and in what way does it change? 

A   The Community remains unchanged in its purpose; it changes by conscious evolution of its means for serving its purpose.

Cosmotheist Affirmations

Cosmotheist Affirmations

These are to be studied, memorized and recited daily by Cosmotheist believers. These Affirmations are also to be recited aloud, in unison by Cosmotheists at the beginning of each gathering to reinforce our Purpose, which is the Creator's Purpose: 

• A:1 There is but One Reality.  

• A:2 That is, Reality is the Whole.  

• A:3 It is the Creator, the Self-Created.  

• A:4 I am of the Whole.  

• A:5 I am of the Creator, of the Self-Created.  

• A:6 My Purpose is the Creator's Purpose.  

• A:7 My Path is the Path of the Creator's Self-Realization.  

• A:8 My Path is the Path Divine Consciousness.  

• A:9 My Destiny is Godhood.

Dr. Pierce Reviews Robert Ardrey's Trilogy

Ardrey Books Pack Ideological Punch

by Dr. William L. Pierce

African Genesis, Robert Ardrey (pictured), 380 pages, softback.
The Territorial Imperative, Robert Ardrey, 390 pages, softback.
The Social Contract, Robert Ardrey, 405 pages, softback.

ROBERT ARDREY’S TRILOGY can without exaggeration be described as the most important piece of popular writing of the last few decades. These books pose such a deadly threat to the reigning orthodoxy that it is almost incredible that they have not only gone through dozens of printings by major publishers during the past 13 years, but that for a while they were actually sold openly in paperback editions at newsstands all over the country.

All three of Ardrey’s books deal with the same basic subject, although each emphasizes different aspects. That subject is animal behavior, studied for the sake of the light it throws on human nature.

Although Ardrey is extraordinarily well-informed on his chosen topic, he is not a scientist himself; prior to African Genesis he was a professional playwright. All the scientific results he reports are the work of others; Ardrey’s great contribution is his enormously effective popularization of research which otherwise might have remained accessible only to scholars.

Beyond this, Ardrey has dared to draw certain profoundly important implications about human nature from the animal studies he has reported.

In African Genesis, the first book of his trilogy, Ardrey presents a convincing case for the animal origins of man’s instinctual drives for territory and dominance. He describes the evidence which indicates man’s descent from a weapon-using, carnivorous predator, Australopithecus africanus, and he relates this to human aggression and man’s instinctive attachment to offensive weapons.

In The Territorial Imperative he greatly expands his thesis of the animal origins of human territoriality.

The Social Contract focuses on certain aspects of group evolution which have important implications for understanding human social behavior.

Ardrey’s books strike a heavy blow at the humanistic basis of neo-liberalism, i.e., at the doctrine of man as the center of the universe, occupying a special and separate position in Nature, independent of the laws governing the rest of God’s creatures.

The liberal has invented a special category, a mental box, called humanity, and anything that is allowed inside acquires thereby an exalted status. It is bestowed with “human dignity.” It is no longer a part of Nature, and a great gulf separates it from all other animate beings.

The liberal has used certain pseudo-scientific arguments to assure himself that this gulf is bottomless: only man, and no other creatures, can use or make tools, the liberal has falsely asserted. Only man, and no other creatures, can use language for communication. Only man, and no other creatures, can reason.

Viewed in the perspective of this practically infinite height of man above other creatures, the difference in human quality, in worth, between a philosopher-king and a slobbering cretin seems small in comparison.

A Newton, a Shakespeare, a Beethoven is, from this viewpoint, essentially on a level with any African Negro. The one might be a trifle smarter than the other, but what is that in the light of the fact that they both have “human dignity”? Thus, the liberals’ obstinate belief in the essential equality of all men.

Now Ardrey has come along and filled up the gulf between man and the rest of Nature. Now we can see man, not as a separate being high on a plateau above other beings, but as a part of Nature’s continuum.

Once we have recognized this continuum, and discarded the notion of a huge quantum difference between man and non-man, the scales fall from our eyes and we can see that the various races of man occupy separate levels in Nature’s hierarchy, just as do the various subhuman species. This hierarchy extends from the protozoon of the primal slime up through more and more complex non-human life forms, through the lower primates to the manlike apes, from the apes to the more primitive and less-evolved races of man, and finally to the higher human races.

Consequently, the concept of human dignity becomes a relative thing instead of an absolute, while “equality” becomes an absurdity.

Carleton Coon

This is entirely in accord with the evidence assembled by others which establishes the separate evolution of the various human races, with the crossing of the subhuman-human threshold occurring at different times. Carleton Coon presents the evidence in his monumental Origin of Races, for example, that the primitive Australoid and Congoid (Negro) races did not cross this threshold until hundreds of thousands of years after the more highly developed Caucasoid (White) and Mongoloid races.

Ardrey’s books greatly enhance the impact of books like Coon’s by forcefully reminding us just how close are the myriad evolutionary roots in the animal kingdom of man’s instinctive individual and social behavior. They thus bridge the animal-human gap and throw human racial differences into proper perspective. Moreover, they accentuate for us the concept of ongoing evolutionary development.

We can more readily see man, and especially Aryan man, not so much as a final end in himself but more as Nature’s highest achievement so far in an unending development toward higher levels of existence, levels which will eventually surpass man’s present state—provided the White race does not manage to commit suicide first.

Ardrey has not only simplified and made available to the general public the findings of the animal behaviorists and other scientists, but he has done it in a way which goes right around a number of mental roadblocks set up by the equalitarian brainwashers.

William Shockley

Dr. William Shockley can explain his evidence of the genetic basis of Negro mental inferiority until he’s blue in the face, and no matter how simple he makes it the boobs won’t get the picture. They know he’s a “racist.”

They’ve been warned to watch out for him. He’s trying to prove Blacks are inferior, and every right-thinking product of the American educational system knows that couldn’t possibly be.

So, if they don’t curse him and try to shout him down, they smile tolerantly while he preaches his “racism,” thus showing that they ‘re liberal enough to let even a crackpot have freedom of speech. But their minds remain closed as tight as a clam. Heresy shall not prevail!

But a nice, liberal boy like Ardrey has no such problems. Promoting “racism”? Why, nothing could be farther from his intentions! He abhors racists.

He circulates easily in the company of Jews, Blacks, homosexuals, communists, and the degenerates of the New York “art” world. This is implicit in all three of his books. He even mentions it explicitly in a couple of places.

And so, while the mind-molders of media, church, and school zealously guard the front door of ideological orthodoxy, guns at the ready and wary eyes peering through chinks in the shutters, Ardrey calmly sails in the back door and mows them all down.

A large part of the effectiveness of his work lies in the fact that he has not really told his readers where all the things he is teaching them are leading. He has not explicitly drawn the ultimate conclusions. He has simply started the reader on the right path and depended on Nature to take its course.

The only reason so many have been willing to start out on Ardrey’s path is that they have not been told where it ends. If they had, they couldn’t be dragged onto it.

The way Ardrey has done it, it all seems so harmless. He is a charming writer, his subject is one of great popular interest, and it is easy to set out for a nice, Sunday stroll with him, learning a bit about the birds and the bees and why they behave the way they do.

When the stroll is over, the entire foundation of the neoliberal worldview has been expertly undermined. It only waits a spark set to the powder Ardrey has packed in there to blow the entire liberal ideology to dust.

For many readers, of course, the spark of understanding never comes. But for enough others it does so that Ardrey’s three books are unsurpassed in their effectiveness at countering the lunatic propaganda which has pushed the White race so close to the brink of oblivion.

* * *

From Attack! No. 28, 1974

transcribed by Vanessa Neubauer from the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, edited by Kevin Alfred Strom. Source: http://nationalvanguard.org/2014/01/ardrey-books-pack-ideological-punch/

Dr. Pierce on Necessity of Staying "Legal"

Editorial by Dr. William L. Pierce, National Socialist World journal, Winter 1968:

Revolution & Legality

 "In a sense, this essay is a precursor of [Dr. Pierce's]
 shift in approach from the National Socialists White Peoples
Party to the National Youth Alliance." -James Harting

Two classes of concepts which are fundamentally different in nature, yet often confused, are those having to do with doctrine and those concerned with tactics. The former are independent of changing circumstances and conditions; the latter are strongly dependent on these things. We make an extremely grave error when we treat a doctrinal point as if it were a tactical matter, but we also make a serious error when we assign to some tactical consideration the attributes of a point of doctrine.

The National Socialist movement has generally been considered to be an element of the "right wing," albeit an extreme element. Indeed, we apparently share a number of things with other right-wing elements, such as anti-Marxism, a respect for tradition, and support for the forces of law and order, That last has meant, among other things, that we have constrained ourselves to the use of "legal" methods only in our struggle.

Now, whereas our anti-Marxism is implicit in our National Socialist doctrine, our self-restriction to legal methods is tactical in nature.¹ Because the movement has, however, since 1923, insisted upon "legality" in its relationship with constituted authority, some may have fallen into the error of thinking that this insistence stems from doctrinal considerations about the sanctity of "law and order." Under certain conditions this error can lead to disastrous consequences. Since the occurrence of these "certain conditions" in the foreseeable future is by no means a merely academic possibility, it may be worthwhile to examine this problem in detail. 

In terms of the most fundamental National Socialist criterion, the question is: Is the support of the constituted authority and the maintenance of law and order in the best long-term interest of the race? And the self-evident answer is, that this depends upon the nature and the aims of the particular constituted authority in question. For while it is true that when a State is fulfilling its proper function as defender and champion of the racial interests of its people the aims of race and law and order become identical, those aims no longer coincide when the State strays from its proper role. In this respect the teachings of the Leader are quite clear:

The State is a means to an end. This end is the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and spiritually homogeneous living creatures. This preservation itself includes, firstly, subsistence as a race and thus permits the free development of all powers slumbering within that race."...States that do not serve this purpose are mistakes, nay, monstrosities. The fact of their existence does not alter this any more than the success of a crew of buccaneers can justify piracy."...We must make a sharp distinction between the State as a vessel and the race as its content. This vessel has a purpose only so long as it can preserve and protect the content; otherwise it is worthless.²

Strictly speaking, only a National socialist State can fully satisfy our criterion: any other State formation can only approximate the ideal role of the State as defender and champion of the racial interests of its people; and in this light the present day Western democracies can only be described as monstrosities. 

If a State can be carried through a peaceful evolution toward its proper role, then this course should be followed, for we certainly do not seek a state of anarchy and chaos as an end in itself. There are always dangers inherent in such a situation: more than one revolution has gone astray during its violent phase, emerging from the conflict with an altogether different character than upon entering.

On the other hand, neither must peaceful revolution be sought as an end in itself. Where it does not provide a realistic and practical course of action, it must be abandoned without hesitation for other means.

************************

"We are 'legal' now because we dare not be otherwise."

************************

Considering the present array of State formations with which we are faced, the question which naturally arises is this: is it conceivable that any of these degenerate and racially destructive entities can be smoothly transformed into a National Socialist State? Or must we think in terms of a total leveling of the present structures before we can hope to begin building a new structure on sound foundations? Whatever our answer, it must be based only upon an evaluation of the possibilities inherent in the various paths leading to our ultimate racial goals, and not upon any false conception of our obligations toward any presently existing State authority.

Again, the Leader has spelled this out for us:

State authority cannot exist as an end in itself, or every tyranny in this world would be sacred and untouchable. If, by the instrument of governmental authority, a people is being driven to its destruction, then rebellion is not only the right but the duty of every member of that people... In general , it must never be forgotten that the highest purpose of man's existence is not the maintenance of a State, let alone of a government, but the preservation of its own kind. Let that be in danger of suppression or destruction, and the question of legality is but subordinate. Then, though the methods of the ruling power be a thousand times 'legal,' the self-preservation of the oppressed is always the noblest justification for a struggle using any and every weapon.³

Why, then, the insistence up till now on "legality" in our struggle? The answer is that we are faced with the same difficulty today that confronted the Movement forty-five years ago in Germany: the enemy, with ll the repressive powers of the State at his disposal, is far stronger physically than we. In any shooting match with the State authority, we are bound to lose decisively, just as we lost on November 9, 1923.

The fact that the anarchist elements among the Jews are able to use illegal means with relative impunity in their assault upon "the Establishment" should not mislead us into thinking that the same tactics will work for us. In the first place, we do not have the allies in the Establishment that they have. We cannot provoke large-scale violence and disorder and receive a gentle slap on the wrist in reprisal, as they can. In the second place, we and they have entirely different aims. Since their purpose is, above all, to destroy the existing order of things, they have a much greater freedom of action than we have; they can carry out their purpose with a much looser organizational structure than we can ours, and thus they are relatively less susceptible to counterattack.

************************

"[T]he key to success in the struggle ahead is self-discipline."

************************

We are "legal" now because we dare not be otherwise; we are yet too weak to defy the State authority successfully. At the same time, as long as we are weak and ineffective the State feels no real threat from us, and, therefore, no pressing need to destroy us. But our relationship to the State is changing, and we are entering a new and critical phase of our development -- one in which we are becoming too strong for the State to ignore, yet not strong enough to defend ourselves from its attacks. These attacks will progress from quasi-legal harassment, intimidation of our members and supporters, and interference with our mail to illegal arrests and criminal charges based on falsified evidence, the withdrawal of police protection, and -- eventually -- outlawry through special legislation. Whenever in the course of these developments we allow ourselves to be provoked into illegal counteraction, we provide the State with the powerful weapon of self-justification. 

Yet, the conflict seems inevitable, for before our struggle is over each and every criminal comprising the System will have a pretty good idea just what fate awaits him at our hands. Very few are likely to deceive themselves into believing that we are "just another Party," with which they can reach an "understanding" which will leave the System largely intact. They will almost certainly realize that a triumphant National Socialism will mean not only a permanent end to their whole way of life, but an end to life itself for many of them. This knowledge will not incline them to yield gracefully to us.

Despite what lies ahead, however, we must strenuously avoid yielding to the temptation to retaliate prematurely to the provocations that beset us. When we do take the very grave step of illegal action, it must only be because the further progress of the Movement demands it -- not because we can no longer repress the urge to satisfy our thirst for vengeance or because irresponsible elements in the Movement have not been kept under close enough rein. 

Thus, the key to success in the struggle ahead is self-discipline. While it is the time to be "legal" we must stolidly endure whatever the State sees fit to inflict upon us. And when it is time to revolt, we must be prepared to unleash all the furies of hell on the State until it yields.

W.L.P.

______________________________________________

1. And our respect for tradition is often tactical rather than doctrinal; it makes a great deal of difference about which traditions we are talking.

2. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, II, Chap. 2.

3. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, I, chap. 3.